Take care

There is always money to be made out of someone else's distress. Lawyers are the usual suspects. But in these troubled times it is not only them but the courts that are coining it in. Small comfort for those involved but, with bankruptcies and repossessions soaring, at last the courts - facing cuts of £140m - are fulfilling one government target. The government wants them to be self-financing. For commercial work this plainly makes sense. Elsewhere, however, it risks being downright dangerous.

Six months ago the government decided that family cases, such as care proceedings, should pay for themselves. That meant local authorities had to bear the full cost of childcare cases, entailing a 30-fold increase in costs where a full hearing was needed . The proposal was put out to consultation, but both the courts' budget and local authority spending had already been set on the assumption that the change would be made. In the next few weeks the high court will decide whether the government is in breach of its human rights obligation to ensure that children have access to justice. The case was brought by four local authorities, backed by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which believes that the new self-financing edict is putting children at risk.

According to the Law Society - an interested party, but not necessarily wrong - the number of care cases has fallen by a quarter since the new system came in. That may be due to a new pre-hearing system designed to ensure that every avenue is explored before cases go to court. But it also means more children are going to grannies or aunts rather than foster parents. Desirable, perhaps. But if local authorities and the NSPCC thought so, they would hardly be spending scarce resources on a legal challenge. Protecting children is not discretionary spending: the NSPCC fears that some local authorities will lack the resources to take to court all the cases that need to be heard. Resorting to "voluntary" arrangements may further endanger children who have already suffered significant physical or emotional harm.

Family courts, providing a vital public service, usually function below the radar, picking over private grief, negotiating with individuals who require patience, time and attention, and protecting some of the most vulnerable in society. Professionals tread a narrow and unenviable path in pursuit of the best interests of the child, knowing they will almost invariably disappoint someone else. Meanwhile, by the logic of the self-financing model, fewer cases coming to court means a gap in court budgets, and more pressure for all involved. Gatekeeping in the public services is always tricky. But there must be a better way than this.